{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
1/18/2013 12:25:34 AM
22
I'm inclined to think that if you are able to reconstruct someone perfectly, right down to the most fundamental constituents of the universe, then that reconstruction IS you. After all, what could be missing that makes you, "you"?
English
-
If someone constructed you without de-making the original, would there be two of you? Would the second one be you? If not, why would it be different with teleportation?
-
Technically though, it wouldn't be 'you.' It would be a separate person with all of your memories, thoughts, and feelings. But your life experiences, from your perspective, would end the moment transport was engaged. Your duplicate's life would 'begin' at the transport exit location, but he would be unable to realize it because his brain would be a perfect reconstruction of your brain at the moment of dematerialization, and as such he would possess all of your memories.
-
There is always the possibility that our conscience or 'soul' exists beyond the body or even the physical realm. It is also very possible (and plausible) that we simply are molecules and atoms, and if an exact replica of us down to the subatomic particle were created, it would be the same thing as us, the same character, mind, memories, etc. This question goes so much farther than ethics. It's a question of what you think defines an individual, which is treading on religion and philosophy.
-
what about my soul, man
-
[quote]what about my soul, man[/quote] Bitch, -blam!- your [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMGxjLH21ho]soul[/url]
-
what about my soul???????????
-
It's lovely and I have the utmost respect for it <3
-
But what I think is the case is, well, what if what has been recreated is just a clone that just thinks it's you?
-
I understand the philosophical argument and the intuitive reason to think it's true; i just don't think it matches reality, or at least reality as far as we know it. There's no reason to believe that consciousness resides anywhere other than in our matter (no empirical or mathematical reasons, anyway), and if we are determined by our constituent particles then an exact clone would be you. There's no way around it. Incidentally, this kind of teleportation with elementary particles has been performed (called quantum teleportation), and the original particle is necessarily altered, so only the "teleported one" matches the original pre-teleportation. There is only ever 1 "copy".
-
Edited by Ric_Adbur: 1/18/2013 5:58:01 AMThe argument being made has nothing to do with 'souls' or the existence of consciousness beyond the body. Precisely the opposite, actually. The argument is that [i]because[/i] your mind is merely the sum total of your brain architecture and the electrical impulses running through it, when that brain is dematerlialized, your personal life experience would, from your own perspective, cease, never to resume. The new brain that is 'rematerialized' on the other end would possess all of your memories, and as such, from it's perspective, it would have lived an entire life. But in actuality, technically, it would have only just been created. The point is not that you wouldn't continue on in some fashion, because the duplicate would be identical to you in every way. It would, for all intents and purposes, be 'you.' But from your perspective, when you use such a device, you are ending your own life. You will not experience anything beyond that point; the duplicate you will, and it won't even be able to tell that this is so.
-
It does have to do with souls, because if souls (or whatever defining characteristic) do not exist, then you are the sum of your parts. In which case, if state A is deconstructed/reconstructed from one place to another then the result is exactly A, and it makes no sense to say A was just created or born. It's exactly the same as "you" evolving from one state to another, which happens constantly. Your body is constantly changing from one state to another, and if you transport your current state ("you") somewhere else then the result must be "you". The only way around it is if some abstract property you have exists outside of your material constituents, which is unfounded.
-
You're failing to grasp what I'm trying to explain, but I know it's because I'm not explaining it properly. Imagine that 'you' are a camera. The camera is placed on the transport pad, the sequence energized, and at that moment, the recording stops. That camera is gone. Then, at the exit location, an identical camera is created using a scan of the original, with copies of all of the footage the original had recorded. Nobody could tell the difference. Ok... this is a terrible analogy but I don't know how else to show you the point I'm trying to raise. Your personal experience, from your perspective, would have to cease the moment your body was broken down. It wouldn't simply resume from where it left off at the new location, precisely [i]because[/i] there is no abstract property that sustains your consciousness beyond your material constituents. Therefore, while the person who came out on the other side would for all intents and purposes be 'you,' the fact remains that 'original you' would never have another experience beyond stepping into that transporter.
-
I know exactly what you're saying (because I have considered it and it's not difficult to understand); i just don't agree with it or think it's a useful distinction.
-
Edited by Ric_Adbur: 1/18/2013 8:09:47 PMI don't see how you can understand what I'm saying, since you seem to think it has something to do with souls or other such nonsensical ambiguous notions of consciousness being independent from the brain - and it doesn't. I also fail to see how it doesn't concern you that you would effectively die when you enter such a device, never to experience any of the things the duplicate you would from that point on (or at least until the next time [i]he[/i] gets into a transporter).
-
I know what you're saying doesn't involve souls, which is why I don't think it's meaningful. Without some sort of abstract soul, it's meaningless to say you die here but live there, even in the context of your consciousness.
-
It's not meaningless if you're the one getting in the transporter.
-
What difference does this situation have from anything else? Teleportation is just irrelevant to the actual question, What defines an individual?
-
And that is where this topic reaches into ethics and goes much deeper than any complicated scientific theories. I don't think we will ever know what defines an individual. This discussion is getting very philosophical.
-
Well until anyone can amply come up with ways to tell that others are actually experiencing life, I'd say it'd simply be easiest to remain grounded in the physical realm. Meaning that if someone is by all observable means is identical, than they should be treated as such and we continue with our routines.
-
You're consciousness? Like you could create an exact clone of yourself, right down to the most fundamental constituents of the universe and have it stand right infront of you. It still wouldn't be "you". Think of it as the diffrence between copying a file on a computer, and moving it.
-
You can email the same file then delete it on the sending computer
-
Where do you think consciousness resides, if not in the matter that makes up your body?
